The frustrating economics of aviation

[C J Campbell]

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can you
imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed
similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting a
seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You
are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to drive
a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would
boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out as
aviation has?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Dudley Henriques]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much:
> low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory
requirements,
> etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.
>
> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming
a
> pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
Can you
> imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government
imposed
> similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of
getting a
> seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills.
You
> are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to
drive
> a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that?
Would
> boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die
out as
> aviation has?
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA

If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
much more reasonable.
At ALL levels, you will find cost factoring to either cover the cost of
litigation, or the FEAR of potential litigation.
Like every other major business the American lawyer has touched, general
aviation has not been spared the unending quest of the American trial
lawyer to fill his pockets with our money by capitalizing on our natural
desire to get rich quick.
It's a perfect system. Greedy and savvy lawyers taking advantage at
every turn of ignorant people also seeking a fast buck. The perfect
marriage!!!

The only losers in this equation are the people. The lawyers NEVER
lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jay Beckman]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
> in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
> presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
> Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
> airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
> much more reasonable.
> At ALL levels, you will find cost factoring to either cover the cost of
> litigation, or the FEAR of potential litigation.
> Like every other major business the American lawyer has touched, general
> aviation has not been spared the unending quest of the American trial
> lawyer to fill his pockets with our money by capitalizing on our natural
> desire to get rich quick.
> It's a perfect system. Greedy and savvy lawyers taking advantage at
> every turn of ignorant people also seeking a fast buck. The perfect
> marriage!!!
>
> The only losers in this equation are the people. The lawyers NEVER
> lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>

AMEN!

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD

[kontiki]

I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals. These
costs are passed along in the form of higher costs for everything
and of course, the little guy ends up paying it.

The actual requirements to obtain a pilots license are, in reality,
fairly minimal. Look how easy it is to get a drivers license and then
look at how many people are killed in automobiles every day. You
don't hear about it on the news because it Isn't news... dozens die
every day across the country in motor vehicles.

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
the requirement are more stringent.

You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:


> You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
> money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
> causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady.
Let's see some numbers.

[leslie]

Dudley Henriques ) wrote:
:
: The lawyers NEVER lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-)
:

Even lawyers can be offshored...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/426946.cms
Now, outsourcing to hit US lawyers - The Economic Times

"After tech jobs and financial jobs , it is now the turn of US legal
jobs to move to India.

West, the Eagan-based legal-publishing unit of Canada's Thomson Corp.,
has started a small test office in Mumbai. Here, half-a-dozen Indian
lawyers are doing online interpretation and legal-classification of
"unpublished decisions" of US state and lower courts, the Star Tribune
has reported. ( Can US legal eagles derail the Indian BPO train? )

Their work is currently not considered big deals -- or "precedential"
in legal parlance.

However, one day, these lawyers could be interpreting and synthesising
US court decisions for subscribers of Westlaw, the online legal
network relied upon by thousands of US attorneys.

[snip]

The American Lawyer had reported recently that General Electric and
other US firms are starting to use Indian lawyers to supplant some of
the work formerly done by US law firms.

Forrester Research, the market research firm, predicts that by 2015
more than 489,000 US lawyer jobs -- about 8 per cent of the total,
will shift to lower-cost countries."


http://www.atlaslegal.com/atlasBusineemode.html
Atlas legal Research

"Where do you go to find some of the world's best lawyers to write
top-quality legal briefs and memos for about the price of a discount
airline ticket?

Answer: We go to INDIA!

In 2001, Atlas established its first research center located in the
heart of India, the world's largest democracy and home to one of the
world's largest pools of intelligent, hard-working, English-proficient
lawyers. Simultaneously, Atlas maintains a presence in the US to
oversee quality and to ensure the finest service to our clients.
Here's why Atlas chose India for its first research center:..."


Would you like fries with your will ?


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Dudley Henriques]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , kontiki at
> wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:
>
>
> > You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have
more
> > money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
> > causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.
>
> The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
is
> that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
> define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
> it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
> be so.
>
> Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
> get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
> are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
no
> anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
> Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Besides....I LOVE anecdotes.....and forget about the coffee lady. Hell,
that's only ONE example of the way the system works:-)

Rather than searching for a non existent legal definition for
"frivolous" as you are suggesting, let me put forth for you a slightly
different approach.

Ten people are lined up in front of a man with a machine gun. The man
starts at one end of the line, faces the first person and asks,
"Do you like bananas?"
"No", says number one.
The man with the gun promptly cuts the first guy in half in a rain of
bullets. His bloody body or what's left of it crumples to the ground in
a pool of blood and gore.
Now the man with the machine gun stands in front of number 2.
He asks, "How bout it....do YOU like bananas?
"No", says number two.
The man with the gun promptly cuts HIM in half in a rain of bullets. His
head separates from his body; the eyes are completely shot out; and the
upper cervical gleams snow white in the sun as what's left of number two
crumples to the ground stone cold dead.

You are number three and next in line. The man stands in front of YOU
and asks, "Tell me there number three, what do YOU think about bananas?"
Now tell me the God's honest truth here ole'buddy, just WHAT the living
hell are YOU going to tell this guy about bananas???? :-)))))

This scenario is more than sufficient for anyone with average
intelligence to understand all the "specifics about frivolous lawsuits"
they'll EVER need to understand in one life time!!! :-)))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
> is
>> that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
>> define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
> fact that
>> it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
> consider to
>> be so.
>>
>> Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
> Let's
>> get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
> And what
>> are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
> no
>> anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
> lady.
>> Let's see some numbers.
>
> Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
> the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
> "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
> individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
> not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
> have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

[Dudley Henriques]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dudley
> Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"
lawsuits
> > is
> >> that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing
to
> >> define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
> > fact that
> >> it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
> > consider to
> >> be so.
> >>
> >> Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
> > Let's
> >> get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
> > And what
> >> are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?
Remember,
> > no
> >> anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
> > lady.
> >> Let's see some numbers.
> >
> > Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to
isn't
> > the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
> > "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
> > individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
> > not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that
you
> > have presented so deftly here I might add :-)
>
> Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful
tort
> reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
> reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
> what is? Being vague?

I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Rip]

I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it!

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>in article , Dudley
>>Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:
>>
>>
>>>"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"
>
> lawsuits
>
>>>is
>>>
>>>>that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing
>
> to
>
>>>>define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
>>>
>>>fact that
>>>
>>>>it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
>>>
>>>consider to
>>>
>>>>be so.
>>>>
>>>>Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
>>>
>>>Let's
>>>
>>>>get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
>>>
>>>And what
>>>
>>>>are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?
>
> Remember,
>
>>>no
>>>
>>>>anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
>>>
>>>lady.
>>>
>>>>Let's see some numbers.
>>>
>>>Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to
>
> isn't
>
>>>the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
>>>"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
>>>individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
>>>not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that
>
> you
>
>>>have presented so deftly here I might add :-)
>>
>>Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful
>
> tort
>
>>reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
>>reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
>
> then
>
>>what is? Being vague?
>
>
> I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
> general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
> hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
> know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
> eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
> reasoning. :-)
> It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
> just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
> It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
> know exists.
> But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
> Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
> and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
> has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
> the many friends I have in business to determine this.
> This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
> Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
> our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
> malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
> have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
> airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
> flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
> state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
> malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
> legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
> lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
> "practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
> me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
> contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
> don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
> going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
> It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
> the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
> stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
> stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
> people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
> used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
> people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
> wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
> The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
> people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
> It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
> the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
> who is moving on.
> I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
> someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
> equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


> I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
> general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
> hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
> know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
> eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
> reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

> It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
> just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

> It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
> know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

> But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Rip at
wrote on 7/17/04 1:26 PM:

> I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
> like it!

Unless it happened to be you, of course.

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Phil;

I'm not giving you a hard time on this Phil. I just sound that way
because I'm old and hate lawyers!! :-))

I understand what you're saying about solving the problem and indeed, it
does need addressing just as you say. I'm afraid I'm totally unqualified
to speak to that issue, and I seriously doubt if it will be addressed by
anyone in the government with the power to correct it since most of them
are part of the problem. The rest of the problem is the general, who
NEVER seem to be able to get organized enough to attack things like
this.
It all comes around in one big gigantic circle of corruption ? What's
indicative to me anyway is that the issue itself could become the fatal
flaw in a capitalistic system; the flaw that brings down the economy of
the country around our own ears.
So in the end I'm with you. I know what the problem is, and I have
absolutely no idea on how to fix it. Could be we're looking at the
ultimate doomsday machine for big business in the United States....the
American Trial Lawyer.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dudley
> Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:
>
>
> > I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
> > general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they
can't
> > hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me
to
> > know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my
two
> > eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to
deductive
> > reasoning. :-)
>
> That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we
live in
> a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
> spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
> realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.
>
> > It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
> > just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
>
> I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.
>
> > It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem
they
> > know exists.
>
> I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
> problem.
>
> > But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing
it.
>
> Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive
at a
> useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will
anything
> ever get done?
>
> Okay, I'll get us started:
>
> 1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of
those
> hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands
against
> their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".
>
>
>
>

[kontiki]

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.


Philip Sondericker wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll get us started:
>
> 1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
> hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
> their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".
>

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

> I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
> to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
> and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
> area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
> people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
> is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
>
> Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
> person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
> from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
> consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
> will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
> frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
> an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really specific
solution that has been posted.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , kontiki at
> wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:
>
> > I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
> > to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
> > and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
> > area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
> > people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
> > is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
> >
> > Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
> > person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
> > from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
> > consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
> > will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
> > frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
> > an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.
>
> I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
> solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




DH

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , kontiki at
>> wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:
>>
>>> I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
> prior
>>> to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
> respected
>>> and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
>>> area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
>>> people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
> who
>>> is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
>>>
>>> Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
> one
>>> person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
> chosen
>>> from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
> to
>>> consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
>>> will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
> as
>>> frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
>>> an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
> greater.
>>
>> I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
> specific
>> solution that has been posted.
>
> But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
> specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
> has been found.
> Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
> but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
> I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
> "solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works just
as well.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dudley
> Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> in article , kontiki at
> >> wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:
> >>
> >>> I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
> > prior
> >>> to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
> > respected
> >>> and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
surrounding
> >>> area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
> >>> people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
> > who
> >>> is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
> >>>
> >>> Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
> > one
> >>> person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
> > chosen
> >>> from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
> > to
> >>> consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
NON-frivolous
> >>> will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
> > as
> >>> frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
or
> >>> an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
> > greater.
> >>
> >> I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
> > specific
> >> solution that has been posted.
> >
> > But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
a
> > specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
problem
> > has been found.
> > Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
forward,
> > but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
:-)
> > I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
> > "solution". :-))))
>
> I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
> as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Bruce Bockius]

I agree, much of the civilized world uses a 'loser pays' system.

Certainly it isn't fair for a victorious plantif to have to pay 1/2 of
his compensation to a lawyer.

And certainly it isn't fair for a victorious defendant to still have
lost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees.

In our current system people sue every party they can think of that
might have money - and why not? They already are paying for the
lawyer, why not just add to the lawsuit the artifical horizon
manufacturer, and the vacuum pump maker, and pilot's estate, and the
FBO, and the aircraft manufacturer, etc? It doesn't cost them (much)
more, and maybe the other parties will settle just to not have to pay
those thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to defend themselves, even
if they are not even remotely connected to the problem.

As many have said the only winners with the current system are the
trial lawyers.

I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too. Let's see, I won my
class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for having a Bronco II
that was "too unstable". I got... the oportunity to request a VHS
tape on how to drive a vehicle with a high CG. The lawyers got how
many millions?? I won my lawsuit against the RIAA for price fixing,
too... I got, oh, zero, lawyers got $$$$. I think I won a suit againt
Microsoft recently.. me, $0, lawyers, ...well you get it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
candidate is ... a trial lawyer. Or that historically the #1
contributer to the DNC is... the Trial Lawyers Association.

-Bruce

Rip > wrote in message >...
> I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
> like it!
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>in article , Dudley
> >>Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>>The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"
> >
> > lawsuits
> >
> >>>is
> >>>
> >>>>that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>>define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
> >>>
> >>>fact that
> >>>
> >>>>it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
> >>>
> >>>consider to
> >>>
> >>>>be so.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
> >>>
> >>>Let's
> >>>
> >>>>get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
> >>>
> >>>And what
> >>>
> >>>>are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?
> >
> > Remember,
> >
> >>>no
> >>>
> >>>>anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
> >>>
> >>>lady.
> >>>
> >>>>Let's see some numbers.
> >>>
> >>>Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to
> >
> > isn't
> >
> >>>the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
> >>>"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
> >>>individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
> >>>not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>have presented so deftly here I might add :-)
> >>
> >>Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful
> >
> > tort
> >
> >>reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
> >>reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
> >
> > then
> >
> >>what is? Being vague?
> >
> >
> > I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
> > general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
> > hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
> > know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
> > eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
> > reasoning. :-)
> > It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
> > just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
> > It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
> > know exists.
> > But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
> > Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
> > and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
> > has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
> > the many friends I have in business to determine this.
> > This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
> > Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
> > our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
> > malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
> > have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
> > airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
> > flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
> > state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
> > malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
> > legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
> > lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
> > "practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
> > me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
> > contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
> > don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
> > going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
> > It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
> > the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
> > stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
> > stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
> > people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
> > used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
> > people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
> > wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
> > The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
> > people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
> > It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
> > the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
> > who is moving on.
> > I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
> > someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
> > equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
> > :-)
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >

[Philip Sondericker]

in article t, Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 7:41 PM:


> Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
> solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

You must have had some very bad experiences involving lawyers. I can respect
that. I myself have had very little experience of them either way, and none
of it particularly negative. I've also known one or two lawyers that I would
be quite reluctant to kill.

[tscottme]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
> low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
> etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.
>
> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
<snip>

If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the Recreational
license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
would guess.

--
Scott

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Bruce Bockius at
wrote on 7/17/04 7:45 PM:


>
> I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too.

Nope. I've never ever sued anyone. Actually, I'd love to win a lawsuit, but
I suppose that would make me a tool of the greedy trial lawyers, eh?

> I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
> candidate is ... a trial lawyer.

Huh? Plenty of people have mentioned it. Most of them lawyers.

[Robert Bates]

The first thing that needs to happen is people need to take responsibility
for their own actions and assume responsibility for the results of their
actions. It is amazing that judges will hear some of these cases but then
again- they are attorneys too. I think the real solution would be to limit
the awards to a reasonable limit by calculating potential income over the
person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.
In the example above of the McDonald's woman, there should be no award
because of my first sentence: she chose to buy the coffee and put it between
her legs, no one held a gun to her head and forced her to take the cup and
on top of that, she would have been mad if it was cold. The current legal
climate is damaging many industries and will continue. Take for example
Parker which has left the aviation market after being sued for a vacuum pump
that did not fail in a fatal crash.






"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > in article , Dudley
> > Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:
> >
> > >
> > > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> in article , kontiki at
> > >> wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:
> > >>
> > >>> I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
> > > prior
> > >>> to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
> > > respected
> > >>> and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
> surrounding
> > >>> area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
> > >>> people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
> > > who
> > >>> is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
> > >>>
> > >>> Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
> > > one
> > >>> person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
> > > chosen
> > >>> from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
> > > to
> > >>> consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
> NON-frivolous
> > >>> will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
> > > as
> > >>> frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
> or
> > >>> an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
> > > greater.
> > >>
> > >> I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
> > > specific
> > >> solution that has been posted.
> > >
> > > But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
> a
> > > specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
> problem
> > > has been found.
> > > Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
> forward,
> > > but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
> :-)
> > > I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
> > > "solution". :-))))
> >
> > I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
> just
> > as well.
>
> Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
> solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
>
>

[Casey Wilson]

> > Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
> > the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
> > "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
> > individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
> > not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
> > have presented so deftly here I might add :-)
>
> Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
> reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
> reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
> what is? Being vague?


My lay knowledge of class action tort is that it is damage to a group
or class of people. Seems to me our flying community (not just the newsgroup
but the community as a whole) constitutes a class. Seems to me that our
class is damaged every time an exhorbitant settlement or even judgement
occurs. In many cases, the settlement seems more like extortion than
justice. In the end, we are damaged because insurance costs skyrocket; We
are damaged in that vendors leave the aviation business resulting in higher
parts costs due to restricted competition. We are damaged because aircraft
manufacturers jack prices to cover their insurance. We are damaged when more
restrictions are placed on our flying. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.....
Seems to me an actionable tort lies in there. I know we must have a
legal pundit or two in our group -- what say you?
I s'pose the biggest problem would be to find a lawyer willing to sue
another lawyer.

Well..... That felt good.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats.
<<

Perhaps if you count the airlines. I don't think this is true for private
pilot / piston single flying.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jack]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much....

[....]

> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

I think we need to keep looking.



Jack

[C J Campbell]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....
>
> [....]
>
> > Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> > pilot.
>
> So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
> are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

No, I am saying that because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

[C J Campbell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
> to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
> endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals.

The monetary cost of a pilot certificate is minor. It is the year in
training that raises the bar too high for many individuals.

[C J Campbell]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much:
> > low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory
requirements,
> > etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
> project.
> >
> > Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> > pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
> <snip>
>
> If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the
Recreational
> license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
> That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
> obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
> would guess.

That was the original idea for the recreational certificate and it is also a
big part of the driving force behind Sport Pilot. Recreational Pilot never
worked because it saved almost nothing off the cost of a Private Pilot.
Sport Pilot may prove much more popular because it allows medical
self-certification. I have had half a dozen students now who took more than
a year just to get a medical certificate. I think Sport Pilot may be tailor
made for such people.

[Jack]

C J Campbell wrote:


> ...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
> unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
> expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.


Jack

[C J Campbell]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> > ...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
> > unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
> > expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.
>
> People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
> aviation.

That may well be true, but it does impose a cost for the rest of us
nonetheless.

[C J Campbell]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> > ...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
> > unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
> > expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.
>
> People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
> aviation.

Then again, that also may not be true. It would be interesting to know
whether pilots as a group contain a smaller percentage of bozos than
automobile drivers, for example. Back when I was riding regularly and
competing in the occasional triathlon I learned that bicyclists behave
little differently than they do when driving; you see the same idiots doing
the same idiotic things. I have no real good reason to believe that pilots
are any different. We still seem to have a significant number of us who fly
while under the influence of various substances, buzz their girlfriends'
houses, try to join the mile high club, etc. It may well be that the reason
we don't run into each other more often is because there are not very many
of us, not because we are trained to any particularly high level of skill or
judgment.

Another thought: an inordinate amount of flight training consists of the
equivalent of learning to parallel park a car -- and nothing has been done
about it. Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
altitude, and navigate. Why is that? It seems that little progress has been
made in more than fifty years. Even the so-called advanced technology
airplanes -- the Cirri, the Diamonds, the new Cessnas (and make no mistake,
just giving an airplane a plastic body does not in and of itself make it any
more advanced than a Cessna 140) -- have made most of their progress in the
area of navigation. They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
even harder to land. One would think that flying could be made a lot easier
than it is now.

[R.L.]

Unlike in medical malpractice, most aviation lawsuits are wrongful death
actions involving dead pilots. And guess who sues when a pilot dies: THE
FAMILIES of dead pilots, blaming the manufacturer for their beloved's death.
So if we want aviation economics to improve, we must prohibit our greedy
spouses and children from suing after we screw-up flying our planes.





"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
> low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
> etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.
>
> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can
you
> imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government
imposed
> similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting
a
> seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You
> are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to
drive
> a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would
> boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out
as
> aviation has?
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[CB]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....
>
> [....]
>
> > Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> > pilot.
>
> So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
> are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.
>
> I think we need to keep looking.

I think that there is a matter of functionality vs. cost vs. benefit.

Getting the best use from an airplane needs a reasonable level of skill.
That would be a current and practised instrument pilot.
It would also need a airplane that's also reasonably well equipped for the
job in hand.

Next you need a reason to use the aircraft so much in order to get so well
skilled.

I know with me, my wife hates flying and can barely bring herself to travel
on airlines let alone go in a small plane. In 20 years she has only been
with me in a SEPL twice.

My son enjoys flying and may one day take it up himself but does enjoy IMC
so if we go anywhere, then it has to be VMC.

The only other alternative is to get a divorce get a new family who like
travelling. The problem with that is that those pesky lawyers would ensure
that I could not afford a $20,000 plane let alone a $300,000.

For me $300,000 is a big investment, there is no way I could sensibly
justify the spend. Also AVGAS is $6 a gallon so the $100 hamburger is nearer
a $300 one.

cb

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:00:43 GMT, (leslie)
wrote:

>Forrester Research, the market research firm, predicts that by 2015
> more than 489,000 US lawyer jobs -- about 8 per cent of the total,
> will shift to lower-cost countries."

So they must be thinking that by 2015, we'll have six times the number of
lawyers that we have today.

I wonder upon what basis they make that conclusion.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:19:47 GMT, kontiki > wrote:

>I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
>to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
>and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
>area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
>people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
>is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).
>
>Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
>person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
>from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
>consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
>will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
>frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
>an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

In many states, and Maine is one of them, a very similar process exists for
medical malpractice cases. The screening panels are also set up to allow
prompt payment of meritorious claims.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0607.htm


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[James Robinson]

kontiki wrote:
>
> Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
> and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
> the requirement are more stringent.

That is not what the statistics say, assuming you were talking about
general aviation, which was the main part of discussion in this thread
up to now. The following from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:

(fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles - year 2001)

3.62 General Aviation (Includes all types of GA)
3.05 Motorcycle riders
0.79 Automobile occupants (Pedestrian fatalities not included.)
0.02 Passengers on trains (Grade crossing, trespassing fatalities not
included.)
0.02 Scheduled air carriers (2000 data used to avoid 9/11 fatality
count.)

As far as boats are concerned, it would depend on what segment of the
industry one wanted to compare, and what passenger-miles would be used.

In the case of cruise ships, there have been no fatalities in at least
the last decade from a casualty. There have been a number of people
falling overboard, plus people who simply succumb to natural causes.
Ferryboats also have a very low passenger fatality rate, and therefore
would fare well in a comparison.

Recreational boating is another story, with 681 fatalities reported in
2001, (GA had 562 fatalities, for comparison) but passenger-miles aren't
reported for recreational boats. (There are 60 times as many boats as
there are GA aircraft -- about 211,500 active general aviation aircraft,
and 12.9 million recreational boats -- if that helps people with a
perspective.)

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.

Most of the cost of learning to fly is the airplane, so the $7,000 is
a total red herring - if planes were cheaper to own and operate, it
would cost a lot less. Why do the planes cost so much? People blame
lawyers, but that's bull**** really. The lawyers are just as present
in automotive and boating industries as they are in aviation. What's
the difference? Private aviation is regulated to a level unheard of
in private boating and private driving, and in fact in any other
private activity. In other words, the important difference is the
FAA.

The reason it takes a year is twofold: First, most of the students
don't have the time to devote to focused training, and don't focus
very well anyway. That's because the average student these days is a
lot closer to 47 than 17, and thus has a lot more distractions in his
life and doesn't learn as well as he did at 17. It's not that the 17
year old doesn't want to learn to fly - but he can't afford it unless
he's career track. The ones who are career track are not taking a
year to learn. Most of them aren't even taking a year to go from zero
to CFI/CFII/MEI. They mostly get the private in under a month.

Second, there's a lot of bull**** to learn. The airplanes are
obsolete, and have many quirky handling characteristics. Carb heat?
Mixture control? Why are they like that? Because the cost of
certifying something truly different is horrendous. In other words,
FAA.

The national airspace system is equally quirky. Lots of complex rules
and procedures to learn, many at odds with actual current practice.
Why? FAA.

The bottom line is that the biggest problem killing personal aviation,
making it dangerous, expensive, and not nearly useful enough - is the
FAA.

> Can you
> imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed
> similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat?

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

> Most of getting a
> seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills.

Sure - and you can get that done in a weekend. And then you can't
rent a seaplane anywhere because the insurance companies know you
haven't actually learned what you need to know to safely operate the
seaplane. So in other words, not only do you go through the process -
but it's also a worthless process.

> Would boating practically die out as aviation has?

I think you already know the answer to that. Regulate private boats
the way we regulate private airplanes, and pretty soon there will be
very few left.

Michael

[Jack]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
> altitude, and navigate.

[....]

> They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
> even harder to land. One would think that flying could be
> made a lot easier than it is now.

It could be, but at much greater cost and with the required technology
separating your already highly stressed, inadequately motivated,
under-trained, and relatively inexperienced human pilot even further
from a comprehension of, and facility with, the dynamics of flight.

Flying an aircraft is not for everybody and we ought to worry less about
fitting square pegs into round holes for the purpose of achieving
dubious economies of scale for those few who are well suited to the game.

What is the point of trying to make a Citabria handle like an F-16? Each
is already available to the appropriately qualified.


Jack

[kontiki]

Yeah, funny thing... in 50 years I've never found an occasion to sue anyone.

Philip Sondericker wrote:
> in article , Bruce Bockius at
> wrote on 7/17/04 7:45 PM:
>
>
>
>>I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too.
>
>
> Nope. I've never ever sued anyone. Actually, I'd love to win a lawsuit, but
> I suppose that would make me a tool of the greedy trial lawyers, eh?
>
>
>>I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
>>candidate is ... a trial lawyer.
>
>
> Huh? Plenty of people have mentioned it. Most of them lawyers.
>
>
>

[tscottme]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

>
> That was the original idea for the recreational certificate and it is also
a
> big part of the driving force behind Sport Pilot. Recreational Pilot never
> worked because it saved almost nothing off the cost of a Private Pilot.
> Sport Pilot may prove much more popular because it allows medical
> self-certification. I have had half a dozen students now who took more
than
> a year just to get a medical certificate. I think Sport Pilot may be
tailor
> made for such people.
>
>

The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous efforts.
I seriously doubt that having an increase in accidents by these coddled
students will help the public's desire. That would do far more harm. No
matter what the current rules allow or what new rules are adopted, one can
argue if they were just a bit more relaxed the results would be astounding.
I don't see any evidence in that direction. It seems more a faith-based
desire.

Not everything some of us like to do is a good candidate for mass public
participation.

--
Scott

[James Robinson]

Michael wrote:
>
> Why do the planes cost so much? People blame lawyers, but that's
> bull**** really. The lawyers are just as present in automotive
> and boating industries as they are in aviation. What's
> the difference?

Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was: A VFR
pilot flies into IMC and finds a mountain. What to do? Sue Cessna.
Pilots tend to have better than average income, so large rewards are
expected.

General Motors doesn't have anywhere near the same number of lawsuits
filed against it.

> The bottom line is that the biggest problem killing personal aviation,
> making it dangerous, expensive, and not nearly useful enough - is the
> FAA.

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

> More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
> way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
> private boats?

While private boats are coming under increasing scrutiny, they don't yet
have the fatality rate of general aviation. Alcohol seems to be the
biggest problem with boating.

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 at 19:02:47 in message
>, Philip Sondericker
> wrote:
>Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
>reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
>reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
>what is? Being vague?

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of defining frivolous, as defining
how much responsibility individuals are expected to take for their own
protection. The reasonable man should assume that the pavement (sorry
sidewalk) may have badly aligned slabs. If he trips he should have kept
a better look out. Individuals should accept responsibility for
undertaking somewhat hazardous activities.

Should G.A. be accepted as a personal risk for example? We are entitled
to believe that public transport is responsible for our safety. If we
are passengers we should not be able to sue the private pilot unless we
have been deceived although a third party causing an accident would be
different.

Of course that approach might be bad for G.A. Anyway?

(UK TV has nightly adverts from legal firms asking if you have had an
accident and offering no-win no-fee terms. We seem to have inherited all
your litigation bad habits over here in the UK .)

;-)
--
David CL Francis

[SR]

I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be discussed,
but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions to this
"huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system works
currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at all to
do with tort law (most lawyers don't).

>There is no real deterrent in the system for
>any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.

Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this losing
lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you suggest
(a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes the
fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but most of
the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the only way
the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if you
settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in court -
juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client can
afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back because the
client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a malpractice
lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this must not
be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting filed.

>Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
>3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a few days in court,
>let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k

filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by other
side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs (depositions you
take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't enought
judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time the
lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court at the
last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory precursor
to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases), and so
on. All of this normally comes out of the client's (plaintiff's)
pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if not, the
lawyer often eats these costs.

>But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k (defendant's cost)=$520k.

How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's costs are
$500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
"costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if defendant
loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own lawyer is
out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the same
plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for costs.

>And won't
>most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the cost of winning is $0."

Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go to
court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs system does
not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is not
only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of squeezing
settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this leverage
when negotiating with plaintiff's.

>A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to put a half mil of his
>own cash on the line."

Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always the poor
helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even more
greedy clients.

>Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's estimated expenses
>before the case goes to trial.

Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to cover
plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?

A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in civil
cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then defendants
wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial lawyers
(a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers going
to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the frivolous
cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of defendant's
fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational. There
is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of 12
people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
combination with court selected experts of the appropriate specialties
for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that they
would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since they
wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side or the
other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or by the
loser or however else sounds like a good idea.

I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a response
showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is actually a
good example of how our society has become too specialized for
lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay juries.

I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad idea.
The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very long
time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other countries to
change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden and
Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't work
here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument over
making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal, knowledge of
how the system works now.




On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

[C J Campbell]

"CB" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The only other alternative is to get a divorce

Never buy homes for more than one woman.

[C J Campbell]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
> > altitude, and navigate.
>
> [....]
>
> > They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
> > even harder to land. One would think that flying could be
> > made a lot easier than it is now.
>
> It could be, but at much greater cost and with the required technology
> separating your already highly stressed, inadequately motivated,
> under-trained, and relatively inexperienced human pilot even further
> from a comprehension of, and facility with, the dynamics of flight.
>
> Flying an aircraft is not for everybody and we ought to worry less about
> fitting square pegs into round holes for the purpose of achieving
> dubious economies of scale for those few who are well suited to the game.
>
> What is the point of trying to make a Citabria handle like an F-16? Each
> is already available to the appropriately qualified.

What is the point of making sure that aviation is so difficult that only a
few people can fly? More particularly, is it really that difficult? The
hurdles that we have now seem to be no barrier to plenty of idiots.

A few people here have been saying that there are too many pilots as it
is -- they don't want to share 'their' airspace with any more. That is just
nuts. There used to be many more pilots than there are now.

General aviation should be a viable and useful form of transportation. Too
many people seem to think that it should be limited to a recreational sport
accessible to only a few. Trouble is, this is the same thing that the
airport haters have been saying for years -- that general aviation is
dominated by elitist romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else.

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see the
logic in your response.
All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the issues
involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of the
post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to the
lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness. But
you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
business!!!
I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present court
system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if you go
to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even charge
you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an attorney
who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your "case"
to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit (which
usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation) they take
the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the potential. This
has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with PROFIT!
If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to the
attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will advise
you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will cost
you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with a gun
he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!! :-))
I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by snake
oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and whether
you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit business
going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never convince me
that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me, and to
millions of average people like me.
Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you lawyers
make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of the
gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make mistakes;
why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is unfairly
charged.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




"SR" > wrote in message
...
> I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be discussed,
> but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions to this
> "huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system works
> currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at all to
> do with tort law (most lawyers don't).
>
> >There is no real deterrent in the system for
> >any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.
>
> Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this losing
> lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you suggest
> (a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes the
> fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but most of
> the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the only way
> the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if you
> settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in court -
> juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client can
> afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back because the
> client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a malpractice
> lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this must not
> be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting filed.
>
> >Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
> >3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a few
days in court,
> >let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k
>
> filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by other
> side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs (depositions you
> take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
> around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't enought
> judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time the
> lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court at the
> last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
> conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory precursor
> to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases), and so
> on. All of this normally comes out of the client's (plaintiff's)
> pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if not, the
> lawyer often eats these costs.
>
> >But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k (defendant's
cost)=$520k.
>
> How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's costs are
> $500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
> "costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if defendant
> loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own lawyer is
> out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
> responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the same
> plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for costs.
>
> >And won't
> >most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the cost
of winning is $0."
>
> Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go to
> court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
> plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs system does
> not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is not
> only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of squeezing
> settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this leverage
> when negotiating with plaintiff's.
>
> >A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to put a
half mil of his
> >own cash on the line."
>
> Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always the poor
> helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even more
> greedy clients.
>
> >Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's estimated
expenses
> >before the case goes to trial.
>
> Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to cover
> plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?
>
> A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in civil
> cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then defendants
> wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial lawyers
> (a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers going
> to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the frivolous
> cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of defendant's
> fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational. There
> is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of 12
> people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
>
> The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
> combination with court selected experts of the appropriate specialties
> for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that they
> would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since they
> wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side or the
> other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or by the
> loser or however else sounds like a good idea.
>
> I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a response
> showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is actually a
> good example of how our society has become too specialized for
> lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay juries.
>
> I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad idea.
> The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very long
> time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other countries to
> change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden and
> Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't work
> here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument over
> making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal, knowledge of
> how the system works now.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> ]> wrote:
>
>

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
>our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
>malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor.

You wouldn't be in Washington State by any change would you? We just
had several family practice MDs in the eastern part of the state stop
delivering kids because of increases in insurance due to law suits.
I would like to think that it's not the number of law suits per say,
but those one or two 'key suits' that change the environment.

[Dudley Henriques]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> >Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually
leaving
> >our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
> >malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor.
>
> You wouldn't be in Washington State by any change would you? We
just
> had several family practice MDs in the eastern part of the state stop
> delivering kids because of increases in insurance due to law suits.
> I would like to think that it's not the number of law suits per
say,
> but those one or two 'key suits' that change the environment.

I'm in an Eastern State. As I understand it, it is indeed the volume.
I'm not all that familiar with the particulars in the medical situation
aside from what I'm hearing from the doctors I know personally, but I
have seen the costs in the aviation industry soar through the roof as
aviation has been decimated by lawyers through my tenure in the
business.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[kage]

Instead of getting married, next time I'm just going to find a woman I
thoroughly detest and buy her a house.

Old pilot's credo.

Karl


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CB" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The only other alternative is to get a divorce
>
> Never buy homes for more than one woman.
>
>

[Jack]

C J Campbell wrote:

> General aviation should be a viable and useful form of transportation. Too
> many people seem to think that it should be limited to a recreational sport
> accessible to only a few. Trouble is, this is the same thing that the
> airport haters have been saying for years -- that general aviation is
> dominated by elitist romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else.

Why do so many pilots think that, even though their generations-old
airports are now surrounded by the inevitable accretion of suburbs and
shopping centers, their communities should maintain these airports for
aviation use instead of turning the airport's acreage to more
appropriate uses? Could it be that these pilots are in fact "elitist
romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else" and worse, they
are not bright enough to understand that their current airports were
built out in the country in years gone by because that's where airports
belong?


Jack

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >, Jack > wrote:
>Why do so many pilots think that, even though their generations-old
>airports are now surrounded by the inevitable accretion of suburbs and
>shopping centers, their communities should maintain these airports for
>aviation use instead of turning the airport's acreage to more
>appropriate uses? Could it be that these pilots are in fact "elitist
>romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else" and worse, they
>are not bright enough to understand that their current airports were
>built out in the country in years gone by because that's where airports
>belong?

Very few pilots support having the local community pay to up keep the
airport. What they take issue with is that people move next to airports
than complain about the noise.
GA field or class B, they always seem to do this. Here in Seattle the
people that live near Sea-Tac (Class B - KSEA) have been fighting against
the building of a 3rd runway (currently we have two parellel runways which
are too close together to allow duel takeoff/landing in during hard IFR).
The airport was there FIRST, they knew that planes make noise when they
bought in. The same with trains, but people just laugh at you when you
tell them that you moved into an apartment/house under the train tracks
and think that something should be done about the noise.
BTW - what's "more appropriate uses." I'm all for more homes and
mini-malls (or even full size malls), I love them. But how is that any
less appropriate than an airstrip? Airports where NOT build out in the
country in years gone by, they were just build. The 'city' grew out to
meet them. NY is a classic example. New airports build TODAY are build
way out in the country to try to avoid these problems (eg. Denver, and
look how well that's working out ^_^).

[SR]

I don't think you said much of anything that I disagree with. I agree
there needs to be change. I agree the system is profit driven (for
lawyers and clients and a lot of other people - professional experts
for example). In fact I pointed out two changes that I think could
have a huge affect either taken together or seperately. I didn't
"inadvertantly prove our point". It was intentional. There are
currently deterrants present to keep frivolous lawsuits from being
filed, but obviously they aren't enough or they aren't the right kind.

I didn't try to convince anyone the system isn't corrupt. If I
thought the system was fine I wouldn't suggest changes. Don't think
for a minute that these suggestions are only made by me on usenet. It
doesn't matter to those who make money on the current system (not just
attorneys) that I am a lawyer, the minute any change to their way of
doing business is suggested you are the enemy. I don't think lawyers
have any special ability to make changes to this than anyone else. In
fact if all the non-trial lawyers wanted to change the system it still
wouldn't happen without the support of the general public.

I will say that simply calling names and complaining without any idea
how the system really works now is probably counterproductive (not
suggesting this is you). This isn't specialized secret knowledge. In
fact most of the practical stuff is not even taught in law school. I
know it because I took the time to learn because I want to see change
take place.

Consider this example. There are a lot of non-pilots out there who
think GA in the U.S. has too much freedom and needs to be changed now.
How seriously do you take their arguments if when they make them they
can't get anything right about the way the current system is run? Do
we take seriously the media and anyone else who refers to every small
airplane as a Cessna? Not that we would necessarily agree with their
suggestions otherwise, but isn't it real easy to dismiss them as not
knowing what they are talking about?


On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:23:01 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see the
>logic in your response.
>All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the issues
>involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of the
>post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to the
>lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness. But
>you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
>business!!!
>I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present court
>system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if you go
>to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even charge
>you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an attorney
>who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your "case"
>to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
>attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit (which
>usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation) they take
>the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the potential. This
>has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with PROFIT!
>If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to the
>attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will advise
>you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will cost
>you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
>Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with a gun
>he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!! :-))
>I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
>pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by snake
>oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and whether
>you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit business
>going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never convince me
>that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me, and to
>millions of average people like me.
>Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you lawyers
>make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of the
>gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make mistakes;
>why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is unfairly
>charged.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
>
>
>"SR" > wrote in message
...
>> I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be discussed,
>> but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions to this
>> "huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system works
>> currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at all to
>> do with tort law (most lawyers don't).
>>
>> >There is no real deterrent in the system for
>> >any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.
>>
>> Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this losing
>> lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you suggest
>> (a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes the
>> fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but most of
>> the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the only way
>> the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if you
>> settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in court -
>> juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client can
>> afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back because the
>> client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a malpractice
>> lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this must not
>> be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting filed.
>>
>> >Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
>> >3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a few
>days in court,
>> >let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k
>>
>> filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by other
>> side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs (depositions you
>> take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
>> around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't enought
>> judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time the
>> lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court at the
>> last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
>> conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory precursor
>> to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases), and so
>> on. All of this normally comes out of the client's (plaintiff's)
>> pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if not, the
>> lawyer often eats these costs.
>>
>> >But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k (defendant's
>cost)=$520k.
>>
>> How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's costs are
>> $500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
>> "costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if defendant
>> loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own lawyer is
>> out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
>> responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the same
>> plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for costs.
>>
>> >And won't
>> >most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the cost
>of winning is $0."
>>
>> Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go to
>> court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
>> plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs system does
>> not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is not
>> only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of squeezing
>> settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this leverage
>> when negotiating with plaintiff's.
>>
>> >A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to put a
>half mil of his
>> >own cash on the line."
>>
>> Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always the poor
>> helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even more
>> greedy clients.
>>
>> >Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's estimated
>expenses
>> >before the case goes to trial.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to cover
>> plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?
>>
>> A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in civil
>> cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then defendants
>> wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial lawyers
>> (a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers going
>> to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the frivolous
>> cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of defendant's
>> fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational. There
>> is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of 12
>> people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
>>
>> The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
>> combination with court selected experts of the appropriate specialties
>> for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that they
>> would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since they
>> wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side or the
>> other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or by the
>> loser or however else sounds like a good idea.
>>
>> I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a response
>> showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is actually a
>> good example of how our society has become too specialized for
>> lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay juries.
>>
>> I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad idea.
>> The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very long
>> time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other countries to
>> change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden and
>> Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't work
>> here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument over
>> making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal, knowledge of
>> how the system works now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
>> ]> wrote:
>>
>>
>

[Jack]

'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:

> Airports where NOT build out in the
> country in years gone by.... The 'city' grew out to
> meet them.

Oh, I see -- that's different then.


Jack

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm not in that much disagreement with your position on this either.
There's no question, to me at least, that the public is a large part of
the problem. Collectively the public seems to be easily led by any and
all sources that specialize in the path to the fast buck. It's
unfortunate, but lawyers are the catalyst that is necessary for the
corruption to succeed, and as such, must take a great deal of the
responsibility for the unfortunate condition we find the legal system in
today.
You literally can't take a young person in school today and talk to them
about ethics when every night on TV they see some fast talking attorney
advertising for anyone and everyone who might have fallen down at some
supermarket to "call me immediately for a free interview" and to "make
sure you get what's coming to you". The unending ads by lawyers surfing
the public each night and day, 24 hours a day, for slip and fall, social
security disability, and God knows what else has totally destroyed any
conception of ethics the public once had for the legal profession. Add
to this, the unending appearance each night of one lawyer after another,
bellowing and talking over each other making their case for or against
one thing or another; all costing the public vast amounts of tax dollars
or personal investment losses as these "hearings" and lawsuits play
themselves out, and you have a constantly deteriorating situation for
the legal profession.
It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the solution
is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for the fast buck
is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the public. The two
together are a formula for disaster.
I'll tell you this much. I honestly feel at this point in my life that
the ONLY solution to the open ended lawsuit issues facing this country
lies in the situation finally becoming so bad that the economy ends up
taking a down side hit so bad that Washington HAS to take action as the
market forces dictate that to take no action will be disastrous for the
economy. Perhaps then, the market will FORCE the government to take a
hard line stand on the tort issue and finally pass legislation that
controls what lawyers can advertise for, and what actually makes it
through to the litigation stage.
Who knows really. As I said, I'm just a simple airplane driver
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"SR" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think you said much of anything that I disagree with. I agree
> there needs to be change. I agree the system is profit driven (for
> lawyers and clients and a lot of other people - professional experts
> for example). In fact I pointed out two changes that I think could
> have a huge affect either taken together or seperately. I didn't
> "inadvertantly prove our point". It was intentional. There are
> currently deterrants present to keep frivolous lawsuits from being
> filed, but obviously they aren't enough or they aren't the right kind.
>
> I didn't try to convince anyone the system isn't corrupt. If I
> thought the system was fine I wouldn't suggest changes. Don't think
> for a minute that these suggestions are only made by me on usenet. It
> doesn't matter to those who make money on the current system (not just
> attorneys) that I am a lawyer, the minute any change to their way of
> doing business is suggested you are the enemy. I don't think lawyers
> have any special ability to make changes to this than anyone else. In
> fact if all the non-trial lawyers wanted to change the system it still
> wouldn't happen without the support of the general public.
>
> I will say that simply calling names and complaining without any idea
> how the system really works now is probably counterproductive (not
> suggesting this is you). This isn't specialized secret knowledge. In
> fact most of the practical stuff is not even taught in law school. I
> know it because I took the time to learn because I want to see change
> take place.
>
> Consider this example. There are a lot of non-pilots out there who
> think GA in the U.S. has too much freedom and needs to be changed now.
> How seriously do you take their arguments if when they make them they
> can't get anything right about the way the current system is run? Do
> we take seriously the media and anyone else who refers to every small
> airplane as a Cessna? Not that we would necessarily agree with their
> suggestions otherwise, but isn't it real easy to dismiss them as not
> knowing what they are talking about?
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:23:01 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see the
> >logic in your response.
> >All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the issues
> >involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of the
> >post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to
the
> >lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness.
But
> >you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
> >business!!!
> >I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present
court
> >system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if you
go
> >to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even
charge
> >you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an
attorney
> >who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your
"case"
> >to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
> >attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit (which
> >usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation) they
take
> >the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the potential.
This
> >has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with PROFIT!
> >If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to the
> >attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will
advise
> >you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will
cost
> >you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
> >Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with a
gun
> >he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!! :-))
> >I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
> >pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by snake
> >oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and
whether
> >you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit business
> >going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never convince
me
> >that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me, and
to
> >millions of average people like me.
> >Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you
lawyers
> >make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of the
> >gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make
mistakes;
> >why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is
unfairly
> >charged.
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"SR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be
discussed,
> >> but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions to
this
> >> "huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system works
> >> currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at all
to
> >> do with tort law (most lawyers don't).
> >>
> >> >There is no real deterrent in the system for
> >> >any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.
> >>
> >> Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this losing
> >> lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you
suggest
> >> (a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes
the
> >> fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but most
of
> >> the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the only
way
> >> the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if
you
> >> settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in
court -
> >> juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client can
> >> afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back because
the
> >> client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a malpractice
> >> lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this must
not
> >> be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting
filed.
> >>
> >> >Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
> >> >3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a few
> >days in court,
> >> >let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k
> >>
> >> filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by
other
> >> side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs (depositions
you
> >> take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
> >> around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't
enought
> >> judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time
the
> >> lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court at
the
> >> last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
> >> conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory
precursor
> >> to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases), and
so
> >> on. All of this normally comes out of the client's (plaintiff's)
> >> pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if not,
the
> >> lawyer often eats these costs.
> >>
> >> >But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k (defendant's
> >cost)=$520k.
> >>
> >> How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's costs
are
> >> $500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
> >> "costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if defendant
> >> loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own lawyer
is
> >> out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
> >> responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the same
> >> plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for
costs.
> >>
> >> >And won't
> >> >most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the
cost
> >of winning is $0."
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go to
> >> court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
> >> plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs system
does
> >> not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is not
> >> only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of
squeezing
> >> settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this
leverage
> >> when negotiating with plaintiff's.
> >>
> >> >A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to
put a
> >half mil of his
> >> >own cash on the line."
> >>
> >> Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always the
poor
> >> helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even more
> >> greedy clients.
> >>
> >> >Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's
estimated
> >expenses
> >> >before the case goes to trial.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to cover
> >> plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?
> >>
> >> A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in
civil
> >> cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then defendants
> >> wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial
lawyers
> >> (a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers
going
> >> to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the
frivolous
> >> cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of defendant's
> >> fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational.
There
> >> is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of 12
> >> people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
> >>
> >> The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
> >> combination with court selected experts of the appropriate
specialties
> >> for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that
they
> >> would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since they
> >> wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side or
the
> >> other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or by
the
> >> loser or however else sounds like a good idea.
> >>
> >> I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a response
> >> showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is
actually a
> >> good example of how our society has become too specialized for
> >> lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay
juries.
> >>
> >> I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad idea.
> >> The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very
long
> >> time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other countries
to
> >> change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden
and
> >> Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't work
> >> here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument over
> >> making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal, knowledge
of
> >> how the system works now.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> >> ]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[C J Campbell]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > General aviation should be a viable and useful form of transportation.
Too
> > many people seem to think that it should be limited to a recreational
sport
> > accessible to only a few. Trouble is, this is the same thing that the
> > airport haters have been saying for years -- that general aviation is
> > dominated by elitist romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone
else.
>
> Why do so many pilots think that, even though their generations-old
> airports are now surrounded by the inevitable accretion of suburbs and
> shopping centers, their communities should maintain these airports for
> aviation use instead of turning the airport's acreage to more
> appropriate uses? Could it be that these pilots are in fact "elitist
> romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else" and worse, they
> are not bright enough to understand that their current airports were
> built out in the country in years gone by because that's where airports
> belong?

Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country." I doubt that
there is a single airport in the entire country that does not get noise
complaints. Heck, Denver built its new airport 20 miles out in the country,
and it still gets noise complaints. I trust you have a solution for that?

[Jack]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country."

There's lots of it you may not be able to see from your condo.


> I doubt that there is a single airport in the entire country
> that does not get noise complaints.

I doubt that noise complaints are as big a problem as the desire to turn
the runways into cul de sacs or industrial parks. Noise complaints just
add to the political traction which the developers need with local
government.


Jack

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Philip Sondericker wrote:
> Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?

Is there a legal equivalent of the NTSB database we can search? Without
that, it's essentially impossible to do - but there are some fairly well
published ones, such as the Jessica Dubroff case (entirely the fault of
the instructor, but Cessna got named in the suit nonetheless), at least
one where the pilot ran the plane out of fuel and the manufacturer got
sued, and one against Cessna when a newly-qualified (teenage) private
pilot decided to buzz his family home and crashed in the process.

'Frivolous', IMHO, includes any case where the manufacturer sues when
the aircraft's commander was grossly negligent - such as running out of
fuel when there's no fuel leak or similar fault, or when the commander
breaks the regulations to do buzzjobs, or where the pilot takes off into
the face of approaching thunderstorms at high altitude airports.
The trouble is the COST of defending these lawsuits where the pilot was
entirely at fault, even if the manufacturer eventually wins, is
hurting the industry.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jack >
wrote:

> Why do so many pilots think that, even though their generations-old
> airports are now surrounded by the inevitable accretion of suburbs and
> shopping centers, their communities should maintain these airports for
> aviation use instead of turning the airport's acreage to more
> appropriate uses?

"more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.

--
Bob Noel

[James Robinson]

Here's an interesting web page, written by an aviation lawyer, where he
discusses the issue of frivolous lawsuits and product liability.

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/avprodliab.html

[James Robinson]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> The trouble is the COST of defending these lawsuits where the pilot was
> entirely at fault, even if the manufacturer eventually wins, is
> hurting the industry.

A couple of quotes from a web site on liability:

- Since 1978, the industry suffered a 95 percent unit sales decline and
the loss of 100,000 jobs.
- From 1978 to 1992, manufacturers spent as much to defend product
liability suits as they had spent from 1945 to 1974 to develop new
aircraft.
- During the '80s, claims paid by the industry soared from $24 million
to over $210 million.

This was a quote from an old US News and World Report article on the
General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1995, which limited product
liability on aircraft over 18 years old:

"Cessna Aircraft, for example, stopped building single-engine planes in
1986 in part because it was sued nearly every time one of its planes,
regardless of age, suffered an accident."

And a quote from a book on the subject:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051304/html/68.html

"The cost for defending itself against product liability claims had
escalated so dramatically that by 1987 Piper was paying a premium of $30
million for an insurance policy with a deductible of $25 million. At
that time, Piper had only $75 million in sales, so it was paying almost
50 percent of its revenues for product liability insurance. "

[SR]

Great point about advertising. There was a time when Bar rules didn't
allow advertising. There was then a Supreme Court case that said it
was protected free speech. I think we can trace a lot of the problems
with the legal profession and system to that point in time.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:53:10 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>I'm not in that much disagreement with your position on this either.
>There's no question, to me at least, that the public is a large part of
>the problem. Collectively the public seems to be easily led by any and
>all sources that specialize in the path to the fast buck. It's
>unfortunate, but lawyers are the catalyst that is necessary for the
>corruption to succeed, and as such, must take a great deal of the
>responsibility for the unfortunate condition we find the legal system in
>today.
>You literally can't take a young person in school today and talk to them
>about ethics when every night on TV they see some fast talking attorney
>advertising for anyone and everyone who might have fallen down at some
>supermarket to "call me immediately for a free interview" and to "make
>sure you get what's coming to you". The unending ads by lawyers surfing
>the public each night and day, 24 hours a day, for slip and fall, social
>security disability, and God knows what else has totally destroyed any
>conception of ethics the public once had for the legal profession. Add
>to this, the unending appearance each night of one lawyer after another,
>bellowing and talking over each other making their case for or against
>one thing or another; all costing the public vast amounts of tax dollars
>or personal investment losses as these "hearings" and lawsuits play
>themselves out, and you have a constantly deteriorating situation for
>the legal profession.
>It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the solution
>is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for the fast buck
>is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the public. The two
>together are a formula for disaster.
>I'll tell you this much. I honestly feel at this point in my life that
>the ONLY solution to the open ended lawsuit issues facing this country
>lies in the situation finally becoming so bad that the economy ends up
>taking a down side hit so bad that Washington HAS to take action as the
>market forces dictate that to take no action will be disastrous for the
>economy. Perhaps then, the market will FORCE the government to take a
>hard line stand on the tort issue and finally pass legislation that
>controls what lawyers can advertise for, and what actually makes it
>through to the litigation stage.
>Who knows really. As I said, I'm just a simple airplane driver
>:-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>"SR" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't think you said much of anything that I disagree with. I agree
>> there needs to be change. I agree the system is profit driven (for
>> lawyers and clients and a lot of other people - professional experts
>> for example). In fact I pointed out two changes that I think could
>> have a huge affect either taken together or seperately. I didn't
>> "inadvertantly prove our point". It was intentional. There are
>> currently deterrants present to keep frivolous lawsuits from being
>> filed, but obviously they aren't enough or they aren't the right kind.
>>
>> I didn't try to convince anyone the system isn't corrupt. If I
>> thought the system was fine I wouldn't suggest changes. Don't think
>> for a minute that these suggestions are only made by me on usenet. It
>> doesn't matter to those who make money on the current system (not just
>> attorneys) that I am a lawyer, the minute any change to their way of
>> doing business is suggested you are the enemy. I don't think lawyers
>> have any special ability to make changes to this than anyone else. In
>> fact if all the non-trial lawyers wanted to change the system it still
>> wouldn't happen without the support of the general public.
>>
>> I will say that simply calling names and complaining without any idea
>> how the system really works now is probably counterproductive (not
>> suggesting this is you). This isn't specialized secret knowledge. In
>> fact most of the practical stuff is not even taught in law school. I
>> know it because I took the time to learn because I want to see change
>> take place.
>>
>> Consider this example. There are a lot of non-pilots out there who
>> think GA in the U.S. has too much freedom and needs to be changed now.
>> How seriously do you take their arguments if when they make them they
>> can't get anything right about the way the current system is run? Do
>> we take seriously the media and anyone else who refers to every small
>> airplane as a Cessna? Not that we would necessarily agree with their
>> suggestions otherwise, but isn't it real easy to dismiss them as not
>> knowing what they are talking about?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:23:01 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see the
>> >logic in your response.
>> >All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the issues
>> >involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of the
>> >post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to
>the
>> >lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness.
>But
>> >you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
>> >business!!!
>> >I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present
>court
>> >system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if you
>go
>> >to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even
>charge
>> >you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an
>attorney
>> >who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your
>"case"
>> >to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
>> >attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit (which
>> >usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation) they
>take
>> >the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the potential.
>This
>> >has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with PROFIT!
>> >If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to the
>> >attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will
>advise
>> >you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will
>cost
>> >you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
>> >Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with a
>gun
>> >he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!! :-))
>> >I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
>> >pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by snake
>> >oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and
>whether
>> >you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit business
>> >going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never convince
>me
>> >that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me, and
>to
>> >millions of average people like me.
>> >Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you
>lawyers
>> >make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of the
>> >gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make
>mistakes;
>> >why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is
>unfairly
>> >charged.
>> >Dudley Henriques
>> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> >For personal email, please replace
>> >the z's with e's.
>> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"SR" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be
>discussed,
>> >> but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions to
>this
>> >> "huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system works
>> >> currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at all
>to
>> >> do with tort law (most lawyers don't).
>> >>
>> >> >There is no real deterrent in the system for
>> >> >any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.
>> >>
>> >> Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this losing
>> >> lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you
>suggest
>> >> (a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes
>the
>> >> fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but most
>of
>> >> the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the only
>way
>> >> the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if
>you
>> >> settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in
>court -
>> >> juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client can
>> >> afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back because
>the
>> >> client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a malpractice
>> >> lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this must
>not
>> >> be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting
>filed.
>> >>
>> >> >Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
>> >> >3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a few
>> >days in court,
>> >> >let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k
>> >>
>> >> filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by
>other
>> >> side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs (depositions
>you
>> >> take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
>> >> around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't
>enought
>> >> judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time
>the
>> >> lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court at
>the
>> >> last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
>> >> conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory
>precursor
>> >> to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases), and
>so
>> >> on. All of this normally comes out of the client's (plaintiff's)
>> >> pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if not,
>the
>> >> lawyer often eats these costs.
>> >>
>> >> >But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k (defendant's
>> >cost)=$520k.
>> >>
>> >> How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's costs
>are
>> >> $500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
>> >> "costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if defendant
>> >> loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own lawyer
>is
>> >> out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
>> >> responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the same
>> >> plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for
>costs.
>> >>
>> >> >And won't
>> >> >most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the
>cost
>> >of winning is $0."
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go to
>> >> court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
>> >> plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs system
>does
>> >> not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is not
>> >> only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of
>squeezing
>> >> settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this
>leverage
>> >> when negotiating with plaintiff's.
>> >>
>> >> >A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to
>put a
>> >half mil of his
>> >> >own cash on the line."
>> >>
>> >> Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always the
>poor
>> >> helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even more
>> >> greedy clients.
>> >>
>> >> >Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's
>estimated
>> >expenses
>> >> >before the case goes to trial.
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to cover
>> >> plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?
>> >>
>> >> A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in
>civil
>> >> cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then defendants
>> >> wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial
>lawyers
>> >> (a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers
>going
>> >> to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the
>frivolous
>> >> cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of defendant's
>> >> fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational.
>There
>> >> is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of 12
>> >> people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
>> >>
>> >> The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
>> >> combination with court selected experts of the appropriate
>specialties
>> >> for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that
>they
>> >> would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since they
>> >> wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side or
>the
>> >> other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or by
>the
>> >> loser or however else sounds like a good idea.
>> >>
>> >> I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a response
>> >> showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is
>actually a
>> >> good example of how our society has become too specialized for
>> >> lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay
>juries.
>> >>
>> >> I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad idea.
>> >> The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very
>long
>> >> time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other countries
>to
>> >> change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden
>and
>> >> Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't work
>> >> here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument over
>> >> making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal, knowledge
>of
>> >> how the system works now.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
>> >> ]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Michael]

James Robinson > wrote
> Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
> automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common. The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

> General Motors doesn't have anywhere near the same number of lawsuits
> filed against it.

Actually, GM has lots of lawsuits filed against it. It simply has the
money to fight it out.

> The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
> ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
> they to blame?

Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
some pilots are not up to it.

> > More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
> > way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
> > private boats?
>
> While private boats are coming under increasing scrutiny, they don't yet
> have the fatality rate of general aviation. Alcohol seems to be the
> biggest problem with boating.

Actually, private boats (and cars) NO LONGER have the fatality rate of
GA. They've improved a lot. Planes haven't improved much.

Michael

[Dudley Henriques]

I am in exact agreement on this. I honestly believe that this is the
single common denominator in the lawsuit equation. The lawyers wanted
the law changed to open the floodgates and that's exactly what they did.
They lobbied their cohorts in government and got the law changed. It's
been a constant rape of every deep pocket available ever since.
If you are indeed an attorney not involved in all this mess, you have my
deepest sympathies.
I'm sure, that like any profession, there are good and honest people out
there just trying to do their jobs and make an honest living. Lawyers as
individuals are no exception to this rule.
But collectively.................what lawyers have done to their
profession is to turn it into something that can arguably be discussed
as a wing of organized crime.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"SR" > wrote in message
...
> Great point about advertising. There was a time when Bar rules didn't
> allow advertising. There was then a Supreme Court case that said it
> was protected free speech. I think we can trace a lot of the problems
> with the legal profession and system to that point in time.
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:53:10 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm not in that much disagreement with your position on this either.
> >There's no question, to me at least, that the public is a large part
of
> >the problem. Collectively the public seems to be easily led by any
and
> >all sources that specialize in the path to the fast buck. It's
> >unfortunate, but lawyers are the catalyst that is necessary for the
> >corruption to succeed, and as such, must take a great deal of the
> >responsibility for the unfortunate condition we find the legal system
in
> >today.
> >You literally can't take a young person in school today and talk to
them
> >about ethics when every night on TV they see some fast talking
attorney
> >advertising for anyone and everyone who might have fallen down at
some
> >supermarket to "call me immediately for a free interview" and to
"make
> >sure you get what's coming to you". The unending ads by lawyers
surfing
> >the public each night and day, 24 hours a day, for slip and fall,
social
> >security disability, and God knows what else has totally destroyed
any
> >conception of ethics the public once had for the legal profession.
Add
> >to this, the unending appearance each night of one lawyer after
another,
> >bellowing and talking over each other making their case for or
against
> >one thing or another; all costing the public vast amounts of tax
dollars
> >or personal investment losses as these "hearings" and lawsuits play
> >themselves out, and you have a constantly deteriorating situation for
> >the legal profession.
> >It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the
solution
> >is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for the fast
buck
> >is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the public. The two
> >together are a formula for disaster.
> >I'll tell you this much. I honestly feel at this point in my life
that
> >the ONLY solution to the open ended lawsuit issues facing this
country
> >lies in the situation finally becoming so bad that the economy ends
up
> >taking a down side hit so bad that Washington HAS to take action as
the
> >market forces dictate that to take no action will be disastrous for
the
> >economy. Perhaps then, the market will FORCE the government to take a
> >hard line stand on the tort issue and finally pass legislation that
> >controls what lawyers can advertise for, and what actually makes it
> >through to the litigation stage.
> >Who knows really. As I said, I'm just a simple airplane driver
> >:-)
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >"SR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I don't think you said much of anything that I disagree with. I
agree
> >> there needs to be change. I agree the system is profit driven (for
> >> lawyers and clients and a lot of other people - professional
experts
> >> for example). In fact I pointed out two changes that I think could
> >> have a huge affect either taken together or seperately. I didn't
> >> "inadvertantly prove our point". It was intentional. There are
> >> currently deterrants present to keep frivolous lawsuits from being
> >> filed, but obviously they aren't enough or they aren't the right
kind.
> >>
> >> I didn't try to convince anyone the system isn't corrupt. If I
> >> thought the system was fine I wouldn't suggest changes. Don't
think
> >> for a minute that these suggestions are only made by me on usenet.
It
> >> doesn't matter to those who make money on the current system (not
just
> >> attorneys) that I am a lawyer, the minute any change to their way
of
> >> doing business is suggested you are the enemy. I don't think
lawyers
> >> have any special ability to make changes to this than anyone else.
In
> >> fact if all the non-trial lawyers wanted to change the system it
still
> >> wouldn't happen without the support of the general public.
> >>
> >> I will say that simply calling names and complaining without any
idea
> >> how the system really works now is probably counterproductive (not
> >> suggesting this is you). This isn't specialized secret knowledge.
In
> >> fact most of the practical stuff is not even taught in law school.
I
> >> know it because I took the time to learn because I want to see
change
> >> take place.
> >>
> >> Consider this example. There are a lot of non-pilots out there who
> >> think GA in the U.S. has too much freedom and needs to be changed
now.
> >> How seriously do you take their arguments if when they make them
they
> >> can't get anything right about the way the current system is run?
Do
> >> we take seriously the media and anyone else who refers to every
small
> >> airplane as a Cessna? Not that we would necessarily agree with
their
> >> suggestions otherwise, but isn't it real easy to dismiss them as
not
> >> knowing what they are talking about?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:23:01 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see
the
> >> >logic in your response.
> >> >All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the
issues
> >> >involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of
the
> >> >post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to
> >the
> >> >lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness.
> >But
> >> >you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
> >> >business!!!
> >> >I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present
> >court
> >> >system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if
you
> >go
> >> >to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even
> >charge
> >> >you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an
> >attorney
> >> >who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your
> >"case"
> >> >to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
> >> >attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit
(which
> >> >usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation)
they
> >take
> >> >the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the
potential.
> >This
> >> >has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with
PROFIT!
> >> >If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to
the
> >> >attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will
> >advise
> >> >you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will
> >cost
> >> >you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
> >> >Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with
a
> >gun
> >> >he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!!
:-))
> >> >I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
> >> >pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by
snake
> >> >oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and
> >whether
> >> >you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit
business
> >> >going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never
convince
> >me
> >> >that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me,
and
> >to
> >> >millions of average people like me.
> >> >Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you
> >lawyers
> >> >make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of
the
> >> >gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make
> >mistakes;
> >> >why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is
> >unfairly
> >> >charged.
> >> >Dudley Henriques
> >> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >> >For personal email, please replace
> >> >the z's with e's.
> >> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"SR" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be
> >discussed,
> >> >> but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions
to
> >this
> >> >> "huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system
works
> >> >> currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at
all
> >to
> >> >> do with tort law (most lawyers don't).
> >> >>
> >> >> >There is no real deterrent in the system for
> >> >> >any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this
losing
> >> >> lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you
> >suggest
> >> >> (a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes
> >the
> >> >> fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but
most
> >of
> >> >> the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the
only
> >way
> >> >> the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if
> >you
> >> >> settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in
> >court -
> >> >> juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client
can
> >> >> afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back
because
> >the
> >> >> client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a
malpractice
> >> >> lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this
must
> >not
> >> >> be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting
> >filed.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
> >> >> >3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a
few
> >> >days in court,
> >> >> >let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k
> >> >>
> >> >> filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by
> >other
> >> >> side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs
(depositions
> >you
> >> >> take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
> >> >> around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't
> >enought
> >> >> judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time
> >the
> >> >> lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court
at
> >the
> >> >> last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
> >> >> conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory
> >precursor
> >> >> to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases),
and
> >so
> >> >> on. All of this normally comes out of the client's
(plaintiff's)
> >> >> pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if
not,
> >the
> >> >> lawyer often eats these costs.
> >> >>
> >> >> >But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k
(defendant's
> >> >cost)=$520k.
> >> >>
> >> >> How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's
costs
> >are
> >> >> $500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
> >> >> "costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if
defendant
> >> >> loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own
lawyer
> >is
> >> >> out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
> >> >> responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the
same
> >> >> plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for
> >costs.
> >> >>
> >> >> >And won't
> >> >> >most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the
> >cost
> >> >of winning is $0."
> >> >>
> >> >> Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go
to
> >> >> court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
> >> >> plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs
system
> >does
> >> >> not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is
not
> >> >> only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of
> >squeezing
> >> >> settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this
> >leverage
> >> >> when negotiating with plaintiff's.
> >> >>
> >> >> >A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to
> >put a
> >> >half mil of his
> >> >> >own cash on the line."
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always
the
> >poor
> >> >> helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even
more
> >> >> greedy clients.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's
> >estimated
> >> >expenses
> >> >> >before the case goes to trial.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to
cover
> >> >> plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?
> >> >>
> >> >> A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in
> >civil
> >> >> cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then
defendants
> >> >> wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial
> >lawyers
> >> >> (a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers
> >going
> >> >> to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the
> >frivolous
> >> >> cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of
defendant's
> >> >> fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational.
> >There
> >> >> is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of
12
> >> >> people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
> >> >>
> >> >> The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
> >> >> combination with court selected experts of the appropriate
> >specialties
> >> >> for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that
> >they
> >> >> would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since
they
> >> >> wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side
or
> >the
> >> >> other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or
by
> >the
> >> >> loser or however else sounds like a good idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a
response
> >> >> showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is
> >actually a
> >> >> good example of how our society has become too specialized for
> >> >> lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay
> >juries.
> >> >>
> >> >> I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad
idea.
> >> >> The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very
> >long
> >> >> time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other
countries
> >to
> >> >> change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden
> >and
> >> >> Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't
work
> >> >> here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument
over
> >> >> making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal,
knowledge
> >of
> >> >> how the system works now.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> >> >> ]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Icebound]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an interesting web page, written by an aviation lawyer, where he
> discusses the issue of frivolous lawsuits and product liability.
>
> http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/avprodliab.html


Yes, and he goes on to explore the homebuilt liability issues as well:
http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html

[Jack]

Bob Noel wrote:

> "more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.

Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear statement.


Jack

[Michael 182]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country." I doubt that
> there is a single airport in the entire country that does not get noise
> complaints. Heck, Denver built its new airport 20 miles out in the
country,
> and it still gets noise complaints. I trust you have a solution for that?
>

It was 20 miles out in the country. Then an outer beltway (E-470) was built
on the east side of the city. Then developers built instant neighborhoods
along the beltway. A whole new town (Reunion, CO) is being built under the
approaches (or departures) for the east-west runways.

Noise complaints are continuous and expected to grow.

Michael

[Andrew Gideon]

kontiki wrote:

> The board will convene once every 90 days to
> consider any pending lawsuits.

Would this be enough to catch a lawsuit against a vacuum pump company for a
crash where the vacuum pump worked? Evidence would need to be presented as
to why the company was included in the action, and evidence would need to
be presented that the pump was (or was not) working.

I like the direction you're taking, but I think it would involve more
time/work that you've envisioned.

However: keep in mind that a jury awarded monies in the case where the
non-failed vacuum pump was involved. Why would the pre-jury you've
designed be any less foolish?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> The monetary cost of a pilot certificate is minor. It is the year in
> training that raises the bar too high for many individuals.

Do you mean that it takes a year or so of calender time? I don't see it
that way.

I probably took longer than average when counting days on the calender given
that I took a winter "off" in the midst of my PPL training. But the
calender time never bugged me. After all, while I was going through my PPL
training, I was flying. How could that be bad <grin>?

Admittedly, if I were career oriented, it would be different. But then I'd
have taken a more <achem> accelerated approach to the process.

But if it does turn out that you're correct, should not the "sport license"
help?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jack wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country."
>
> There's lots of it you may not be able to see from your condo.

<Laugh> Do you realize you've written this statement to a pilot? Or do you
expect he does his flying in a condo?

- Andrew

[Richard Russell]

>
>Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
>reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
>reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
>what is? Being vague?


It's not only a matter of frivolous, it's also a matter of a complete
lack of logic an common sense. Just look at the recent suit where the
vacuum pump manufacturer got burned at the stake even though the
vacuum pump performed as advertised. How that can happen is beyond
what my feeble mind can process.

Rich Russell

[Jack]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Jack wrote:
>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Part of the problem is there is no more "out in the country."
>>
>>There's lots of it you may not be able to see from your condo.
>
>
> <Laugh> Do you realize you've written this statement to a pilot? Or do you
> expect he does his flying in a condo?

Do you imagine that a "pilot" could seriously claim that there is no
more "out in the country" (in the USA)? He may well do his flying in a
"condo" for all the sense his claim makes.

And how do you suppose I come by my views? Certainly not from sitting in
my living room for the past 4 decades.


Jack

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Dudley and SR,

> It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the
> solution is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for
> the fast buck is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the
> public. The two together are a formula for disaster.

The fact that people (the public AND the lawyers) will jump at any
money the think they might be able to grasp might be sad but it is a
fact of society. Few people turn their back at a gold nugget lying
before their feet.

The real problem is the legal system itself, which WILL on occasion
grant hundreds of thousands of Dollars to someone stupid enough to
place a cup of hot coffee between their legs. If cases like that were
regularly and relyably dismissed (and, yes, maybe a cost to be paid for
filing it), lawyers would stop filing them, or at least defendands
would not need to worry about them. Obviously a company, as was
recently cited, considers it a real possibility, that a jury might
judge it to pay a huge amount of money for building a vacuum pump that
did NOT fail, just because the plane carrying it crashed! So real a
possibility, that the company preferred to accept a settlement (and
leave aviation business alone in the future). How insane is that?

THAT needs to be changed. As SR pointed out, one trick to change that
would be to elimiate jurys and leave it to professionals. Jurys tend to
favor with the "little man" against the big, bad corporation, no matter
how ridiculous the claim.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Teacherjh]

One problem I have with "tort reform" is that if it's reformed to the extent
people seem to wish it, there would be even less defense against large
corporations cutting corners they oughtn't cut. Remebmer, it's in their best
interests to take risks with our lives to increase their cash flow.

As long as there is disparity of access (to law services), the large
corporations have the advantage. "Tort reform" will likely end up cementing
that advantage in place.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Greg]

Jack wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > "more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.
>
> Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear statement.

Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use than
something else. How many more strip malls, shopping centers, and landfills do
we need? Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is that
not enough? Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.


Abandoned airports like Pittsburgh Metro and Fall River (MA) became blight
after they closed, although at least Pittsburgh Metro was privately owned. I
still don't think the feds ever really made Fall River pay back their grant
money as the law required. And the promised casinos never came either, just a
few rusting structures were built on the property.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >, Jack > wrote:
> > Airports where NOT build out in the
>> country in years gone by.... The 'city' grew out to
>> meet them.
>
>Oh, I see -- that's different then.

Actually it is. There's a difference between saying "We need to build
an airport lets do it away from the city." And "our town has been
expanding, in fact we've grown so large we're right to the each of the
river and the edge of the airport."
The end result might be the same, but the methodolgy is different.

[Greg]

Michael wrote:

> James Robinson > wrote
> > Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
> > automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was
>
> Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

They don't need to be that common when they are for millions and millions of
dollars. Who can forget the lawsuit that Piper lost because somebody took off
in their Cub with the seat removed on a runway with a truck intentionally it?
Piper was found at fault because the pilot couldn't see directly in front of
him before the tail wheel came up. (never mind that it was a tailwheel
airplane or that it had been certified by the govt that way or that the seat
had been removed.)
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1992/pc9212.html (Piper would later
lose the appeal too).


Or who can forget the poor fellow who flew his Cessna 182 VFR into a massive
thunderstorm in Virginia and was killed? Cessna was found responsible and had
to pay millions and millions because of a "defective tail design." Nevermind
that test pilots flew numerous 182s to Vne and couldn't find anything wrong
with the tail, that it had been certified by the feds, or that pilot had
illegally been scud running into IMC without an instrument rating.

> The last
> one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
> nobody sued.

The knives were sharpened amongst the individual parties but there was a big
settlement. Yes, I"m pretty amazed that Piper and every parts manufacturer
wasn't sued, but they probably figured they already have enough money and it
wasn't worth the time in court. Good for them.

[smackey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message >...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
> in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
> presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
> Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
> airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
> much more reasonable... Blah, blah, blah.
>

As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

Ernst & Young and the Risk and Insurance Management Society's report
of business liability costs recently found such costs to be miniscule
and the lowest in over a decade. The study found liability costs to
be in steep decline to only $4.83 for every $1000 in revenue in 2000.
2001 RIMS Benchmark Survey, (2002).

The United States is the most competitive nation in the world and
companies with high liability exposure are having great success
innovating and competing in world markets. Institute form Management
Delopment, 1998 Report. In a study of US manufacturing
competitiveness, teh Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
found that the greatest influences on US competitiveness were capital
costs, quality of human resources, technology transfer and technology
difficulties. Liability laws were not even mentioned as a factor.
The business-backed Conference Board stated affirmatively in its 1987
report that product liability laws do not have significant adverse
effects on competitiveness. In more than 2/3s of the surveyed
companies, liability costs were less than 1 per cent of total costs.

Most notably, the Board found "Where product liability has had a
notable impact--where it has most significantly affected management
decision making-- has been in the quality of the products themselves.
Managers say thet products have become safer, manufacturing procedures
have been improved, and labels and use instructions have become more
explicit." Weber, Nathan "Product Liability: The Corporate Response,
Research Report #893.

I could go on and on and on, with facts, not hysterical hyperbole and
repetition of tired, unsubstantiated propaganda by gullible sheep.
GET SOME FACTS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF, FOR A CHANGE!!!

Want to criticize John Edwards for being an "ambulance chaser,' taking
frivolous cases? Give me the name of the case and/or the facts of the
case, and let's see!

Frivolous lawsuits- there is a procedure to deal with them. See Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the stste rules patterned
after it in most states.

Loser pays?? Yes; I'll bet the coffee lady would have loved that
rule!

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

[smackey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message >...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation
> in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the
> presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation.
> Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the
> airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be
> much more reasonable... Blah, blah, blah.
>

As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

Ernst & Young and the Risk and Insurance Management Society's report
of business liability costs recently found such costs to be miniscule
and the lowest in over a decade. The study found liability costs to
be in steep decline to only $4.83 for every $1000 in revenue in 2000.
2001 RIMS Benchmark Survey, (2002).

The United States is the most competitive nation in the world and
companies with high liability exposure are having great success
innovating and competing in world markets. Institute form Management
Delopment, 1998 Report. In a study of US manufacturing
competitiveness, teh Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
found that the greatest influences on US competitiveness were capital
costs, quality of human resources, technology transfer and technology
difficulties. Liability laws were not even mentioned as a factor.
The business-backed Conference Board stated affirmatively in its 1987
report that product liability laws do not have significant adverse
effects on competitiveness. In more than 2/3s of the surveyed
companies, liability costs were less than 1 per cent of total costs.

Most notably, the Board found "Where product liability has had a
notable impact--where it has most significantly affected management
decision making-- has been in the quality of the products themselves.
Managers say thet products have become safer, manufacturing procedures
have been improved, and labels and use instructions have become more
explicit." Weber, Nathan "Product Liability: The Corporate Response,
Research Report #893.

I could go on and on and on, with facts, not hysterical hyperbole and
repetition of tired, unsubstantiated propaganda by gullible sheep.
GET SOME FACTS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF, FOR A CHANGE!!!

Want to criticize John Edwards for being an "ambulance chaser,' taking
frivolous cases? Give me the name of the case and/or the facts of the
case, and let's see!

Frivolous lawsuits- there is a procedure to deal with them. See Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the stste rules patterned
after it in most states.

Loser pays?? Yes; I'll bet the coffee lady would have loved that
rule!

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >, Greg > wrote:
>
>
>Michael wrote:
>
>> James Robinson > wrote
>> > Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
>> > automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was
>>
>> Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

There's no database (that I know of) that lists such things, but it
seems based on my own personal non-random observation and misc internet
searchs that every time a Boeing plane goes down, they get sued (including
911). Your resuls might vary...

[Earl Grieda]

"Greg" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> > Bob Noel wrote:
> >
> > > "more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.
> >
> > Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear
statement.
>
> Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use
than
> something else. How many more strip malls, shopping centers, and
landfills do
> we need? Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is
that
> not enough? Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.
>

Is this statement about the number of airports being closed each year true?
Where can I see data that supports this claim regarding 50 airports a year
closing? I know AOPA quotes it but they do not back it up with data.

Earl G

[Dylan Smith]

In article <hjmKc.118690$XM6.23791@attbi_s53>, Robert Bates wrote:
> person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
> obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
> is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.

Not necessarily; I'm sure quite a few people worth $10M now once worked
at fast food restaurants as a teenager.

The problem with the amounts of money involved in lawsuits doesn't seem
to be the damages part, it seems to be the punitive part. The plaintiff
should only receive the money from the actual damages award - the
punitive part should be treated as a fine, or possibly held in trust -
where neither the lawyer nor the plaintiff gets it. Removing the chance
of making $millions from a lawsuit will deter fishing expeditions.

I have a confession to make - our family has sued someone. When I was
15, I was opening a door normally at school, but the glass (which didn't
meet building code) broke and did me a very serious injury [0]. My mother
had to take three months off work to take me into hospital every day for
3 hours of physiotherapy. However, the rewards was entirely consistent
with our loss - GBP 7,500 in 1987 money (probably about GBP 9000 - or
roughly US$12000 these days) - which covered unpaid time off work, fuel and
other expenses. I'm sure the same case in the USA would have
resulted in at lest $1M in damages. Fix the problem of excessive awards,
and the problem of frivolous lawsuits goes away.

[0] The glass broke and sliced through my wrist to the bone - all flexor
tendons cut, both arteries cut (lots of blood), several other cuts as
the glass fell out of the door frame. It required almost 7 hours of
microsurgery to fix in a specialist hospital, followed by 3 hours of
physiotherapy 3 hours per day, five days per week for 3 months.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jack]

Greg wrote:

> Jack wrote:

>>Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear statement.
>
> Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use than
> something else.

Let's not be too imaginative. An airport certainly could be a less
appropriate use for a given property. I did not use the word "should".


> Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is that
> not enough?

Maybe. If you need one, build it -- or drive a little further -- or
better yet move closer to where the airport is, or even buy a piece of
an airport and live on it. There are plenty of solutions that don't
involve paranoia, but do require an unbiased look at the world around you.


> Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.

Yes, economics is a bitch, isn't it? The market works.



Jack

[Jack]

'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:

> There's a difference between saying "We need to build
> an airport lets do it away from the city." And "our town has been
> expanding, in fact we've grown so large we're right to the each of the
> river and the edge of the airport."
> The end result might be the same, but the methodolgy is different.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference, but if you like working
with "methodologies", why not pick one that worked in the past and
imitate it?

Just remember: nothing is forever.


Jack

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(smackey) wrote:

> Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

really? I never would have guessed.

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, tscottme wrote:
> The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
> students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs was
> the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should produce
> significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing almost no
> results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and easier,
> when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous efforts.

This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
nearly pointless.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dudley Henriques]

"smackey" > wrote in message
m...

> Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.


Well, if you are a trial lawyer, you can't be a very good one. :-)
Trial lawyers are usually way too smart to make a point by forming a
comment that takes an individual (Henrique) and portrays that individual
in a hypothetical group (them and their ilk); which is a glittering
generalization; then in the next sentence, demands specifics. That's
hysterically funny!!!!
You were doing fine until you reached for that "them and their ilk" bit.
Here's a clue for your "next case".
Glittering generalization has no place in trial law. Actually, it has
no place in intelligent dialog either :-))))

Here's your comment;

>Opinionated diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety
>much the order of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me >some
specifics!!!

Brilliant!!! :-))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[C J Campbell]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, tscottme wrote:
> > The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
> > students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs
was
> > the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should
produce
> > significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing
almost no
> > results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and
easier,
> > when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous
efforts.
>
> This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
> get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
> no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
> Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
> really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
> being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
> takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
> nearly pointless.

Nevertheless, Sporty's uses the Recreational Pilot certificate as a waypoint
towards Private Pilot. This makes some sense; for the cost of a check ride,
the student gains considerably more flexibility than he would have as a solo
student. Personally, I would rather my solo students not have that
flexibility (in fact, I usually have quite a few more restrictions than the
regulations require), but apparently some instructors find it a useful tool.

[G.R. Patterson III]

tscottme wrote:
>
> The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
> students.

They would have been right if the proposal had passed as originally written. The
original proposal removed the requirement for a medical certificate. The Department
of Transportation added that requirement in the last revision. If the final version
of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
will bother with that one either.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (smackey) wrote:
>
> > Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.
>
> really? I never would have guessed.

What, that he was pround of it? I suppose hookers, paid killers, drug
dealers, etc., are proud of their professions, too.

[Michael]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote
> tscottme wrote:
> > The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
> > students.
>
> They would have been right if the proposal had passed as originally written.

I doubt it. It would have allowed some old guys to keep flying a
while longer, and that's about it. Getting a medical is a non-issue
for 99% of those under 45. That's not exactly the future of aviation.

> If the final version
> of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
> will bother with that one either.

Nonsense. The real issue that keeps sport aviation small is not the
medical requirement - it's the cost of the airplane. The sport pilot
certificate itself is pretty meaningle - but a category of aircraft
that you don't have to build yourself that don't have to be FAA
certified is going to be very important.

Michael

[smackey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message t>...
> Well, if you are a trial lawyer, you can't be a very good one. :-)
> Trial lawyers are usually way too smart to make a point by forming a
> comment that takes an individual (Henrique) and portrays that individual
> in a hypothetical group (them and their ilk); which is a glittering
> generalization; then in the next sentence, demands specifics. That's
> hysterically funny!!!!
> You were doing fine until you reached for that "them and their ilk" bit.
> Here's a clue for your "next case".
> Glittering generalization has no place in trial law. Actually, it has
> no place in intelligent dialog either :-))))
>
>Well, of course neither Tom nor Dudley have given any response to the
original issue; rather, just ad hominum attacks on the author. That
should settle who is right. In the courtroom, we have an argument that
carries some logical weight: "There are two things that a jury must
consider-the law and the facts. If the law is against the lawyer,
pound on the facts. If the facts are against him, pound on the law.
If both the law and the facts are against him, pound on the other
lawyer." "Nuff said."

Tom's response is his usual insipid personal insult when he is beat
(often), and deserves no response. Dudley's response is similarly
without substance. There is no generalization; my observation about
his (lack of) facts and supportable opinion and those of his ilk (like
Tom) is proven by the "content" of his response.

[John]

smackey wrote:

> As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
> diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
> of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
> There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
> centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.
>
> FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
> Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
> (March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
> no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
> This study was consistent with the National Association of
> Attorneys General:
> "The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
> litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
> allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
> insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
> the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
> such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
> causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
> insurance industry itself."

It is pretty amusing that a (self-proclaimed) tort lawyer posts to an aviation forum, of all places, to say that tort reform
is not needed. It is ironic because aviation is one of the few industries that have had protections placed against jackpot
justice tort suits, with stellar results. You don't need an insurance industry study to learn that Cessna built a new
factory and started building piston airplanes again after the General Aviation Revitalization Act, with its statue of repose,
was made law. Or that Piper was able to have a fighting chance of keeping insurance and emerging from bankruptcy
successfully.

And then the same tort engineer proclaims that protectins against jackpot justice don't reduce insurance costs. Sure that's
why my father, previously an orthopedic surgeon in Nevada had to move to California. California doesn't allow unlimited
punitive damages and its malpractice insurance premiums are orders of magnitude lower than Nevada as a result. That's if you
can get malpractice insurance at all. It was either move or leave the medical profession. A friend of his in Nevada had to
stop practicing altogether even though he loved to treat people. Neither of them had either been sued. And that story is
being repeated around the country in many states. Yet the special interest tort engineers, assisted by their paid peers in
the legislators, insist that tort reform does not help. This is in spite of the fact of the success in states such as
California and Lousiana. Good thing we have tort men like John Edwards who successfully convince juries that innocent
doctors are responsible for celebral palsy as they collect their 40% of millions and millions of jackpot money. No small
wonder why so many hospitals can't afford the insurance they need to stay in business and are closing left and right across
the country.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
> > ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
> > they to blame?
>
> Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
> and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
> basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
> some pilots are not up to it.
>

!$%^*! I have to agree with you again. I think I am going to be ill.
Fortunately, I disagree with most of the rest of your post.

[Captain Wubba]

Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
books, and other items? About $3000.

I started my private pilot training on September 1, 2001. Even with
the break after 9/11, I received my Private certificate in February,
2002. Total cost? right around $5000. I was (and am) a busy
professional. But I placed a high enough value on my flight training
to fly at lunch, right after work, and whenever else I could. It
needn't take a year, even for very busy people.

Aviation hasn't 'practically died out' Hundreds of thousands of GA
pilots fly tens of millions of hours per year. A rental Cessna 172
will cost you about $0.55 per mile, on average (around here). A
personally owned or club plane can cost you even less. The standard
IRS deduction for the use of a personal car is $0.375 per mile. Is it
*really* that outrageous that it costs 50% per mile to go twice as
fast?

And given that recreational boating is *much* less complex than
PP-ASEL flying (by their respective natures), shouldn't it be more
time-consuming and difficult to learn how to fly, than to learn how to
boat? To be honest, I really don't see a problem here.

Flying and learning to fly are not cheap. Nor are they outrageously
expensive. But are the training requirements onerous, or
inappropriately complex? I really don't think so. I really don't
*want* people flying around up there who have been trained to the
level of the average recreational boater (nothing against them...but
skills necessary to skipper a houseboat across a lake are clearly less
demaning that those necessary to pilot a Cherokee on a 300 mile XC).

To me, it all comes down to what you value. For the benefits of
flying, my $5000 for my private ticket (and the additional for my
Commercial, my Instrument, my Multi, and my CFI) is an absolute
bargain. If you are dedicated and really want to fly and are willing
to maintain the proficiency levels necessary to be competent, then the
cost of training and flying really are not greatly excessive, if at
all. If a person is *not* willing do to those things, then I don't
really see the benefit of bringing that person into the community of
pilots. I really don't see why learning to fly should be cheaper than
learning to play the piano.

Cheers,

Cap



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
> low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
> etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA project.
>
> Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
> pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can you
> imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed
> similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting a
> seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You
> are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to drive
> a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would
> boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out as
> aviation has?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
> But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
> pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
> counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
> niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
> costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
> son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
> tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
> proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
> books, and other items? About $3000.

Compare all these with taking golf lessons -- ten years and several thousand
dollars and most people still stink.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
> > But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
> > pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
> > counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
> > niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
> > costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
> > son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
> > tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
> > proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
> > books, and other items? About $3000.
>
> Compare all these with taking golf lessons -- ten years and several
thousand
> dollars and most people still stink.

I have played golf since I was five years old, and never have I won a game
yet. :-(